Devendra Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

By means of the present C482 application, applicant has challenged the impugned orders dated 15.01.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bageshwar in Criminal Case No.366 of 2015,D evendra Kumar Vs. Kundan Singh Parihar and Other,s and order dated 01.04.2016

passed by the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Criminal Revision No.05 of 2016,D evendra Kumar Vs. Kundan Singh Parihar and Other,s refusing

to order for registration of FIR on the application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant on 24.08.2015 was returning from his home, after registering the admission of his son-Dhruv

Kumar in a local school. On his way, he met respondent No.2-Kundan Singh Parihar, who is posted as Patwari of Rawat Sera and at drunken stage,

he said some caste based slurs to him and asked to arrange for liquor. When he expressed his inability for liquor, respondent No.2 poked him with

lathi. Thereafter, the applicant 2 along with his son went to his home. At around 03:00 PM on the same day, the respondent No.2 along with his other

companions who worked in the Tehsil, reached applicant’s home and took him to a nearby chauki by handcuffing him. Thereafter, he was brutally

beaten there, which resulted into serious injuries and he became 20% disabled. The fact and nature of injuries are duly supported by medical evidence

and reports. As, respondent No.2 with his fellow companions were apprehensive of legal action, which the applicant could take against him, they

lodged a false complaint against him stating that the applicant obstructed him from doing his duty and also assaulted him.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the police authorities, the applicant preferred an

application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar urging him to direct the police to lodge the FIR under

applicable provisions of law. In furtherance of this, learned CJM has recorded the statements of the applicant along with two eye witnesses who

supported his story on oath, inspite of this, learned CJM, without considering the material on record, dismissed the application under Section 156(3) of

Cr.P.C. Learned CJM also failed to examine the two star witnesses, who were present at the spot of incident.

It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that against the order of learned CJM, Bageshwar, the applicant preferred a revision

being Criminal Revision No.05 of 2016, Devendra Kumar Vs. Kundan Singh Parihar and Other,s in the Court of learned Sessions Judge,

Bageshwar, who also ignored the grounds and material available on record and mechanically dismissed the revision vide order dated 01.04.2016. Now,

the applicant is before this Court by filing the present C482 application.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the basis of his counter affidavit stated that the respondent No.2 was posted as Revenue Sub Inspector

Rawat Sera, Tehsil Kanda, District Bageshwar. Respondent No.2 vehemently denied the allegations of the applicant and stated that on 24.08.2015 at

around 01:00 PM, the applicant for no reason quarreled with him and caused him severe injuries, the impact was so severe that he got six stitches in

his forehead and he immediately registered an FIR at P.S. revenue S.I.- Sani Udiyar, Tehsil Kunda, District Bageshwar. He further submitted that the

applicant was arrested for the offence and was henceforth released on bail. He also submitted that this C482 application along with the application

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. report is a story developed by the applicant after he was released of bail and the applicant’s concocted story has

already been rightly disbelieved by both the lower courts below.

Learned State Counsel has also submitted that this is the case of cross-FIR and as the applicant is himself a person who assaulted an on duty

government servant, he deserves no leniency. Moreso, when already two courts below have dismissed the application of the applicant, the present

C482 application also deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record, this Court is of the view that the

learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below.

Resultantly, the present C482 application is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.